Freedom of Speech, Censorship and Michael Moore

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:42 pm

Looks like two conservative groups are launching a campaign to get Fahrenheit 9/11 banned from cinemas.

Move America Forward wrote:Since we are the customers of the American movie theatres it is important for us to speak up loudly and tell the industry executives that we don't want this misleading and grotesque movie being shown at our local cinema.

This I don't get. If you don't want to see it, then just don't go. Simple as that. Asking for a movie ban simply because it doesn't reflect your political views seems like a very undemocratic thing to me. It just strikes me as completely wrong.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:48 pm

How odd ... so you can't have moores movie at the cinema but movies where they kill, slaughter and have lots of sex they are fine ... but since they are fiction perhaps that doesn't offend as much.

But if they are that uber conservative then I doubt they was the core audience and was going to see the movie anyway.

TheScamp wrote:Basically she's Michael Moore, only conservative, blonde, and relatively attractive.

Just shows that attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, personally I wouldn't want to be caught dead with her. I wouldn't want any part of my body touching any part of her unless I was working her over with a baseball bat, in which case my body still wouldn't have to touch hers.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:24 pm

I just read a part of her website, and she comes off as one of those super-disrespectful fanatics. She's got a book, patronisingly named "How to Talk to a Liberal." She conveniently lumps all liberals on the same heap, and gladly compartimentalises herself as a conservative.

I don't think I know anyone who is either a liberal or a conservative and furthermore I think those archetypes don't actually exist. Therefore her rather rigid conservative stance strikes me as nothing more than sensationalism that will get her picture in the paper and her books published. Much like what people accuse Michael Moore of.

Granted, I don't know her that well, and this is the (perhaps premature) conclusion I draw based on her website.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:34 pm

As an afterthought; doesn't this partisanship in the U.S. make you want to cry? I have the feeling that so many politicians are caught up in the "we're right, you're not" partisan politics that it's beginning to stand in the way of progress.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:42 pm

DV8 wrote:I don't think I know anyone who is either a liberal or a conservative and furthermore I think those archetypes don't actually exist.

Not only does Ann think they exist, she thinks they're the only two points on the political spectrum:

Ann Coulter wrote:Swing voters are more appropriately known as the idiot voters because they have no set of philosophcial principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a conservative or a liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster.

The Ann Coulter action figure said so.

The Move America Forward site is also worth visiting.

Move America Forward wrote:Join us as we report on the "good news" you don't hear about in the War on Terrorism and the heroic actions of our troops.

And Golly Gee, isn't this project going well? Six whole news items! And not one of them actually about the heroic actions of American troops.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:46 pm

Just shows that attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, personally I wouldn't want to be caught dead with her. I wouldn't want any part of my body touching any part of her unless I was working her over with a baseball bat, in which case my body still wouldn't have to touch hers.

Hence the "relatively" portion of my statement. Physically, I think most objective people would say that she is above average on the Good Lookin' scale. How/if that opinion changes once you learn her politics isn't what I was commenting on.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:47 pm

DV8 wrote:I just read a part of her website, and she comes off as one of those super-disrespectful fanatics.

She is. I mean, I don't know her that well, either, but she's certainly a super-disrespectful fanatic.

DV8 wrote:She's got a book, patronisingly named "How to Talk to a Liberal."

Sadly, conservative pundits are less funny than liberal ones. Thus, "How to Talk to a Liberal," not funny, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," funny.

DV8 wrote:She conveniently lumps all liberals on the same heap, and gladly compartimentalises herself as a conservative.

Well, that's how the game is played. That's not unique to the much-lamented american bipartisan system, either; you don't get far in British politics talking about, "some Greens," either. [It's easier in Italian politics, when there are only 14 people in each political party, and there are 18 million parties. Then you can refer to "the Left Democratics," about the same way you refer to "the Sforza family."]

DV8 wrote:I don't think I know anyone who is either a liberal or a conservative and furthermore I think those archetypes don't actually exist.

I don't know how you mean this, but it's hard to think of a way in which it's compellingly true.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:50 pm

DV8 wrote:As an afterthought; doesn't this partisanship in the U.S. make you want to cry? I have the feeling that so many politicians are caught up in the "we're right, you're not" partisan politics that it's beginning to stand in the way of progress.

This isn't confined to the US, actually. It's one of the biggest problems Germany is facing a the moment. The political process in our country demands a lot of consensus from numerous sides and parties. Since many ideas and laws are shot down because they originate from an opposing party, a lot of the reforms Germany is in dire need of just don't make any progress. I wish politicians were more pragmatic and able to accept that other parties may have good concepts as well. But it's always about power and influence, unfortunately.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:59 pm

TheScamp wrote:Hence the "relatively" portion of my statement. Physically, I think most objective people would say that she is above average on the Good Lookin' scale. How/if that opinion changes once you learn her politics isn't what I was commenting on.

OK, I'll give you that. I'd do her but if she opened her mouth to talk I'd reach for my bat!

I'd probably need to put a bag over her head and get really drunk so I don't know it is her ... So clearly more trouble then it and she is worth.

3278 wrote:Sadly, conservative pundits are less funny than liberal ones. Thus, "How to Talk to a Liberal," not funny, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," funny.

Well her book titles arn't that inviting, high crimes, slander, treason. They don't even sound mildly entertaining (and they arn't even thou I only checked out 1/3 of them). Could the problem be that the liberals like Franken (Lies and lying ...) is just a funny guy and not so strung up hyper serious and as in Coulters case the ice bitch queen you just want to kill when you hear her voice. I'd rather listen to Fran Drescher (or however that is spelled) laugh for the rest of my life then listening to her (ann) speak. Hannity isn't even as fucked up as she is and he scores quite high on my hate-o-meter.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:04 pm

3278 wrote:
DV8 wrote:I just read a part of her website, and she comes off as one of those super-disrespectful fanatics.
She is. I mean, I don't know her that well, either, but she's certainly a super-disrespectful fanatic.

Another thing hardly confined to politics and pundits. After all, look at Lorg.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:08 pm

... hrm ... . .. ... .

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:29 pm

DV8 wrote:I don't think I know anyone who is either a liberal or a conservative and furthermore I think those archetypes don't actually exist.

I know some people who are close to pure liberals in outlook. They're far from left-wing, though.

Not sure I know any conservatives per se. Plenty of nationalists, Darwinists, and religious fundamentalists, but no bona fide conservatives. Just people who go along for the ride.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:22 pm

I guess what I was saying is that I don't generally lump entertainment as informative. I don't get my news from the latest Arnold flick any more than I would get my political idealogy from a Moore movie.

I guess I was also saying again that Moore was selling news, and that makes me wary. In that fact he is little different than anyone else that sells news.

I think 3278 touched on something in one of his post. Al Franken wrote for SNL, he knows how to be funny. Ann Coulter appears to have little in the way of a sense of humor. A lot of what is considered the left wing in America consists of high profile entertainers. It's easy to see how their side of the issue would be presented in a slicker fashion than a different side. (I just read an interview with Al Franken in Rolling Stone last night and I laughed.)

I agree with Toryu that I'll use my dollar to voice my opinion. If I don't end up wanting to see Moore's movie I just won't spend my bucks on it.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:08 am

...And I think Mike would support your stance. It's not like he's trying to shove his movie down people's throats.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:20 am

I'd say he's just using a lot of stupid people to generate free publicity.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 5:23 am

Crazy Elf wrote:I'd say he's just using a lot of stupid people to generate free publicity.

the American dream in action

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:24 am

I watched Micheal Moore on Dateline NBC last night. Let me say that first I expected the guy who was interviewing him to be pretty adversarial, as I don't see NBC as a whole being too supportive of his work in this film. I also expected Mr. Moore to expect this sort of interview and to be pretty well prepared to support his positions and work.

I was really disappointed. It seems he does better when he's had time to prepare his message pretty thuroughly. (Don't we all?) His answers were contrived and dishonest in my opinion. Even taking into account Matt Lauer set out to hammer him, it was pretty sad.

Here are some of the sadder quotes from last night, lifted from Drudge Report:

Moore: ... That's part of what I'm doing. But, most importantly-- listen, if I just wanted to do-- if it was just about the politics, if that was my primary motivation, politics, ... I would-- you know suspend what I'm doing right now and get out on a campaign trail.

Lauer: Some people say that's what you've done.

Moore: Or maybe-- or maybe I should be running for office this year. Some Congressional District back in Michigan. I mean if politics was my main motivation I would be doing politics. But I'm a filmmaker. So first and foremost, the art has to come before the politics. Otherwise...the politics don't work.

I just don't see how he can say any of that with a straight face. For me its a lot like the Bush administration claiming they had a Moral obligation to fight the war on terrorism and Iraq.

Thats just not the whole story.

Re: How Moore obtained his footage from the war in Iraq:

LAUER: There's a disturbing sequence in the film that shows-- US soldiers, casualties. It has interviews with US soldiers in battles. How did you get that footage?

MOORE: From a variety of sources...

Lauer: ...Do you think that the soldiers thought they were talking to a film crew that was working with Michael Moore?

Moore: Some of them did and some of them didn't...

Lauer: ...Do you think that's fair?

Moore: Well, I think it's fair that the American people know what's going on. These soldiers are certainly presented in the film with the deepest respect...

Huh? Its okay for me to be a journalist with no integrity-not that I am after all this is an art form-and criticize someone else integrity and honesty?

Sphincter say what?

On a lighter note:

Re: Moore's views on "Farenheit 9/11" being given an "R" rating:

Moore: ...I...think teenagers should...see this film...In a few years, they may be asked to go and fight in this war. This war doesn't look like it's gonna be over any time soon. If...we are saying that in a year or two, a 15 or 16-year-old can go fight in this war, and possibly die, but...we can't show it to them on the movie screen...I just want to encourage teenagers across America to do whatever they can to sneak in, to see this movie. I'll help-- if I'm near a theater and you see me, I'll be your guardian. I'll get you in...I can understand why some people wouldn't want them to see it. But they should see this film.

I like his spirit! I don't think it should rate an "R" based off that I know-but I admit what I know is pretty damn little. Any one have any more on why its rated "R" and any thoughts on that?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:10 pm

No, but I /can/ tell you that people apparently booed when the trailer ran last night at the movie my parents went to go see.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:26 pm

Serious Paul wrote:
Re: How Moore obtained his footage from the war in Iraq:

LAUER: There's a disturbing sequence in the film that shows-- US soldiers, casualties. It has interviews with US soldiers in battles. How did you get that footage?

MOORE: From a variety of sources...

Lauer: ...Do you think that the soldiers thought they were talking to a film crew that was working with Michael Moore?

Moore: Some of them did and some of them didn't...

Lauer: ...Do you think that's fair?

Moore: Well, I think it's fair that the American people know what's going on. These soldiers are certainly presented in the film with the deepest respect...
Huh? Its okay for me to be a journalist with no integrity-not that I am after all this is an art form-and criticize someone else integrity and honesty?

Sphincter say what?

While it certainly is less that ideal that some of the soldiers interviewed didn't know who they were talking to, I think I understand why Moore did it. People are biased, especially your typical grunt. I think it would have been extremely difficult to get honest and objective answers from them if they knew the interviewers worked for Moore. I'm a bit torn on this, actually. Lying to the interviewed people would be wrong, but if the soldiers simply failed to ask who those interview people actually are, Moore and crew can't really be blamed.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:16 pm

I guess I can see that, but as a guy who has been there and done that, I wonder who'd have time to ask a film crew who they were working for. While you're getting shot at its pretty easy to file that shit as not essential.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:18 pm

BBC Author anger at Moore film title

Looks like Ray Bradbury is somewhat upset with Moore for the spoof on the title of the movie (compared to his book).

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:04 pm

So what exactly was wrong with what Moore said in that interview? I'm confused.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:44 pm

Serious Paul wrote:
Re: How Moore obtained his footage from the war in Iraq:

LAUER: There's a disturbing sequence in the film that shows-- US soldiers, casualties. It has interviews with US soldiers in battles. How did you get that footage?

MOORE: From a variety of sources...

Lauer: ...Do you think that the soldiers thought they were talking to a film crew that was working with Michael Moore?

Moore: Some of them did and some of them didn't...

Lauer: ...Do you think that's fair?

Moore: Well, I think it's fair that the American people know what's going on. These soldiers are certainly presented in the film with the deepest respect...
Huh? Its okay for me to be a journalist with no integrity-not that I am after all this is an art form-and criticize someone else integrity and honesty?

Basically, yes it is. Michael Moore makes documentaries. George W Bush runs a country, and is its elected representative. It seems perfectly reasonable to expect a lot more integrity and honesty from the latter.

Serious Paul wrote:I guess I can see that, but as a guy who has been there and done that, I wonder who'd have time to ask a film crew who they were working for. While you're getting shot at its pretty easy to file that shit as not essential.

So, what are you actually saying here? That only reporters who are uncritical of a war should be allowed to report on it?

Sorry, but the way I see it, if you have enough time to talk to be interviewed by a film crew, you have enough time to ask who they work for. If you don't want to appear in a Mike Moore documentary, you decline to be interviewed. It's not like he's violated anybody's rights here.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:53 pm

mrmooky wrote:Basically, yes it is. Michael Moore makes documentaries.

We have a fundamental disagreement.

I think Micheal Moore makes movies. Some have more documentary style scenes, but I don't think they fit into what I see as Documentary films. I'm certainly not the Oscars, so maybe my definition is off.

George W Bush runs a country, and is its elected representative. It seems perfectly reasonable to expect a lot more integrity and honesty from the latter.

That seems reasonable. I guess I don't see Bush as any less honest than Moore.

So, what are you actually saying here? That only reporters who are uncritical of a war should be allowed to report on it?

No.

Sorry, but the way I see it, if you have enough time to talk to be interviewed by a film crew, you have enough time to ask who they work for. If you don't want to appear in a Mike Moore documentary, you decline to be interviewed. It's not like he's violated anybody's rights here.

Thats so silly on so many levels. Its not like they had a choice in the media being there. They weren't asked. The Pentagon assigned media rep's to be embedded.

As for the time to talk-ever here of stress taking its toll? You're a critical thinker in a fist fight are you? When people are shooting at you, or near you you're logically thinking of legalities are you?

Wow. Impressive.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:04 pm

Serious Paul wrote:We have a fundamental disagreement.

I think Micheal Moore makes movies. Some have more documentary style scenes, but I don't think they fit into what I see as Documentary films. I'm certainly not the Oscars, so maybe my definition is off.

He intends to make non-fiction pieces that document real events. Regardless of his accuracy of integrity, I call that documentary-making.

Serious Paul wrote:Its not like they had a choice in the media being there. They weren't asked. The Pentagon assigned media rep's to be embedded.

Then blame the Pentagon for letting Moore's crew in, not Moore for asking questions.

Serious Paul wrote:As for the time to talk-ever here of stress taking its toll? You're a critical thinker in a fist fight are you? When people are shooting at you, or near you you're logically thinking of legalities are you?

Wow. Impressive.

I haven't seen the movie, but I doubt the film crew would be interviewing people while they were actually being shot at. If they were, then they were endangering American troops. But I don't see any evidence that this was the case.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:05 pm

I saw an interview with Moore when he was on Letterman. I can't say that I was too impressed with him.

At a certain point Letterman said something I was quite impressed with, though. He said something along the lines of "When you watch the film, and you see all the evidence it seems airtight, but could someone smarter than myself come in and say 'Yes, that's true, but misleading. And yes, that's true, but also misleading' and that the conclusion of F9/11 is spurious?"

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:08 pm

mrmooky wrote:He intends to make non-fiction pieces that document real events.

Is it bad I still disagree?

Regardless of his accuracy of integrity, I call that documentary-making.

Fair enough. I can respect your opinion here.

Then blame the Pentagon for letting Moore's crew in, not Moore for asking questions.

Can I skip to throwing Lawyers into the ocean? Please?

I haven't seen the movie, but I doubt the film crew would be interviewing people while they were actually being shot at. If they were, then they were endangering American troops. But I don't see any evidence that this was the case.

The clips I have seen have definitely been action shots. By the by, as I understand it Moore wasn't actually let in right? I mean this all footage culled from mainstream media right? Embedded reporters right?

See? I don't blame Moore for everything....yet!:)

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:24 pm

Serious Paul wrote:
mrmooky wrote:He intends to make non-fiction pieces that document real events.
Is it bad I still disagree?

No, but if you think he's actively setting out to mislead people, it would help if you assigned him some kind of motive. Bear in mind that the administration he's ratting on gave him a huge tax cut.

Serious Paul wrote:Can I skip to throwing Lawyers into the ocean? Please?

Only if I get to throw Ann Coulter.

Serious Paul wrote:The clips I have seen have definitely been action shots. By the by, as I understand it Moore wasn't actually let in right? I mean this all footage culled from mainstream media right? Embedded reporters right?

So, they're not even interviews? In that case, I don't see what's wrong with Moore using the footage at all. It shows them fighting, Moore says he doesn't agree with the war, but unless he calls them baby-eating infidel conspirators, it's not a slant on them at all. Furthermore, unlike the French, they don't own their image. So I don't really see what he's doing wrong.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:58 pm

I highly recommend watching <a href="http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1 ... t">Michael Moore's interview on Letterman</a>. My favorite quote:

Michael Moore wrote:What I said was is that we were being led to war for fictitious reasons, and I didn't really know if that was true at the time. It was only the fifth day of the war, you know... It felt right.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:39 pm

Christopher Hitchins is on the far left. You can read someone who's not a Republican, or even a conservative, tell you what's wrong with Moore and his films.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:08 pm

3278 wrote:I highly recommend watching <a href="http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1 ... t">Michael Moore's interview on Letterman</a>. My favorite quote:
Michael Moore wrote:What I said was is that we were being led to war for fictitious reasons, and I didn't really know if that was true at the time. It was only the fifth day of the war, you know... It felt right.

Disappointing, wasn't it?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:11 pm

Not so much for me, since I don't feel much about Moore one way or the other, having seen none of his films and having virtually no exposure to his politics beyond what I read here.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:26 pm

Marius wrote:Christopher Hitchins is on the far left. You can read someone who's not a Republican, or even a conservative, tell you what's wrong with Moore and his films.

It's a good article - but I should point out that Hitchens and the left parted ways a few years ago. Not that the merit of his argument is affected by his position on the political spectrum, but he's still not "far left", at least not in the conventional sense of the term.

Christopher Hitchens wrote:"[Today's left] would have left us with Slobodan Milosevic in power, Bosnia ethnically cleansed, Kosovo part of Greater Serbia, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Iraq the property of a psychopathic crime family. Now, I'm sorry to say, I've no patience with that leftist mentality anymore."

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:08 am

mrmooky wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:Can I skip to throwing Lawyers into the ocean? Please?
Only if I get to throw Ann Coulter.

No need to ask for that. Coulter is a lawyer.

How she got her degree without being lynched by the mob is another question.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:05 am

Yup. I was aware of that.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:16 am

No, but if you think he's actively setting out to mislead people, it would help if you assigned him some kind of motive. Bear in mind that the administration he's ratting on gave him a huge tax cut.

He does have a motive; beating the crap out of Bush. He's very open about he fact that the movie is an outright personal attack on Bush and his administration.

Furthermore, he is clearly out to mislead people, as long as it makes a point. For example, at one point in the film he's walking around DC asking members of congress to sign their children up for the military to go and fight in Iraq. In one of those interactions, he's talking with a congressmen (I think a Kennedy, but not one of the JFK Kennedys), who stares at him blankly for a minute with this "What the fuck" look on his face. What he leaves out is that senator gladly offering to help Moore hand out his material in congress because he's got a nephew heading to Afghanistan.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:55 am

That doesn't even begin to make sense. If the congressman is a Democrat, and Moore is trying to secure a Democrat victory in November, he would not be setting out to negatively misrepresent him. If the congressman is a Republican, and he's making his own party look bad, you'd think it would be significant enough to be in the film.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:18 pm

Thinking was your first mistake.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:35 pm

That doesn't even begin to make sense. If the congressman is a Democrat, and Moore is trying to secure a Democrat victory in November, he would not be setting out to negatively misrepresent him. If the congressman is a Republican, and he's making his own party look bad, you'd think it would be significant enough to be in the film.

Your parliament is showing.

Moore only wants a Democrat victory because he wants a Bush defeat. He'll negatively represent anybody if it props up whatever fiction he's working on. And not to worry. He could work over any Democrat he wants because, a) it won't spill over to Kerry because that's not how political parties work here, and b) nobody who matters cares what's in a Michael Moore film.

If the Congressman was a Republican he wouldn't be making his party look bad, because he didn't do anything that could.

The Congressman, by the way, was Mark Kennedy, a Republican, and didn't know who Moore was.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 4:16 am

Whatever fiction he's working on? Nice that you've decided to say that the entire movie is a bunch of lies before seeing it. That's very Republican of you.

Alareth · Post by **Alareth** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:27 am

Crazy Elf wrote:Whatever fiction he's working on? Nice that you've decided to say that the entire movie is a bunch of lies before seeing it. That's very Republican of you.

No, it's not a bunch of lies, it's selected truths, news footage, and comments that are edited to be incomplete or out of context. Manipulation of facts to suit Moore's purposes.

If there are lies in the movie, they are lies of ommision.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:50 am

And yet you have not seen the movie. No matter how you phrase it, you're opinion is still completely ignorant of the subject matter being discussed. Perhaps such badgering should wait until the movie itself has been viewed, so that fewer people will make themselves out to be complete tits in the meantime?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:12 am

Yeah, see, the thing is that I'm not completely ignorant of the subject matter being discussed. As it is, I've read every print piece on the movie that I've been able to get my hands on, some of which have been complimentary, but most of which have been pretty derogatory. None of them claim that the piece resembles reality, which would have been a first for Moore in any event.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:26 am

Uhm, ok... question. Moore is pretty open about not liking Bush, so he's broadcasting his bias. And yes, I'm sure he's cherry-picked what he's going to show in Fahrenheit 9/11. How does this make him any different from any other political activit out there? Or any other politician, for that matter?

Of course Moore is biased! Just like Fox News is (they just hide it slightly better). But he's informed us of his bias, loudly and clearly. I fail to see the problem here.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:01 am

We covered that on page 2, or 1. No one thinks he is any different in any significant way.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:28 pm

I challenge you to make documentaries that will support Bush Adminstration, and make it rake more money than Firey-911.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:34 pm

Careful what you wish for Flame. Republicans have tended to have much more success in making the transition from the Silver screen to the political arena. (Ronald Reagan being the best example, Arnold being another pretty decent example.)

Apparently someone in the republican party can act, 'cause they get elected!

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:53 pm

The movie has opened now right? So anyone seen it yet or plan to in the next few day? So we can get a review from someone we trust (HAHAHA!).

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:41 pm

Shit dude I haven't watched a movie at the theater since ROTK. Chances are I'll see this when it gets to DVD.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:54 pm

Well you do live in the arse-end of nowhere- or didn't you move a while back? Either way, perfect isolated Cthulhu country. Wonder what Paul's SAN loss is?